MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Development and First Clinical Use of Semipermeable Microcapsules (Artificial Cells) as a Compact Artificial Kidney

2000· article· en· W1985504683 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Ming Swi Chang, N Malave

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Apheresis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Research and Pathophysiology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharcoalActivated charcoalMicroporous materialArtificial kidneyChemistryChromatographyHemoperfusionBiocompatible materialChemical engineeringBiomedical engineeringAdsorptionSurgeryMedicineOrganic chemistryHemodialysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guest Editor's Introduction: Activated charcoal has a microporous structure and a large surface area that nonspecifically adsorbs the substances in the molecular weight range of 100–5,000, including hepatoxins, uremic toxins and drugs. The success of the first clinical trial for the treatment of chronic renal failure with an activated charcoal column was carried out by Yatidis in 1964, but the clinical application for the charcoal column has not been possible. This is because the charcoal presented major problems such as the release of microparticles and platelet activation. Chang solved these problems by developing the activated charcoal which was microcapsulated by biocompatible materials. Since then, many kinds of activated charcoal columns have been commercialized for blood purification use and are still widely utilized. This paper which describes the first clinical use of microcapsulated charcoal was printed in Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs, vol 16, page 141–148 (1970) and is reprinted here with permission.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic ApheresisSame topicBiomedical Research and PathophysiologyFrench-language works237,207